1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 BRENDA J., 8 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-6058 RAJ 9 v. ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF 10 BENEFITS COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 11 Defendant. 12
13 Plaintiff seeks review of the denial of her applications for Supplemental Security Income 14 and Disability Insurance benefits. Plaintiff raises a number of issues unrelated to the denial of 15 benefits. Dkt. 39. As discussed below, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision 16 and DISMISSES the case with prejudice. 17 BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff is 54 years old, has at least a high school education, and has worked as an 19 administrative clerk, education courses sales representative, collections clerk, order clerk, and 20 appointment clerk. Admin. Record (“AR”) (Dkt.30) 15, 23, 88, 96, 225–43. On August 8, 2017, 21 Plaintiff applied for benefits, alleging disability as of December 1, 2015. AR 15. Plaintiff’s 22 applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. AR 86–133. After the administrative 23 law judge (“ALJ”) conducted a hearing on June 11, 2019, the ALJ issued a decision finding 1 Plaintiff not disabled. AR 15–26, 33–85. 2 THE ALJ’S DECISION 3 Utilizing the five-step disability evaluation process,1 the ALJ found:
4 Step one: Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since December 1, 2015, the alleged onset date. 5 Step two: Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: Lumbar spine degenerative 6 disc disease; essential hypertension; peripheral edema; peripheral neuropathy; congestive heart failure; chronic pain syndrome. 7 Step three: These impairments do not meet or equal the requirements of a listed 8 impairment.2
9 Residual Functional Capacity: Plaintiff can perform light work with additional exertional limitations. She cannot climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. She can 10 occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. She needs to avoid concentrated exposure to hazards. 11 Step four: Plaintiff can perform past relevant work as an administrative clerk, education 12 courses sales representative, collections clerk, order clerk, and appointment clerk.
13 Step five: There are other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform. Plaintiff is therefore not disabled. 14 AR 15–26. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, making the ALJ’s 15 decision the Commissioner’s final decision. AR 1–3. 16 DISCUSSION 17 The Social Security Act provides that an individual may seek judicial review of a denial 18 of benefits after a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 19 Section 405(g) “clearly limits judicial review to a particular type of agency action, a ‘final 20 decision of the [Social Security Administration] made after a hearing.’” Califano v. Sanders, 21 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977). Section 405(g) is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for review of 22
23 1 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. 2 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App’x 1. 1 administrative decisions concerning claims for Social Security disability benefits. See 42 U.S.C. 2 § 405(h) (“No findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner of Social Security shall be 3 reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided.”); 4 Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 757 (holding that § 405(h) prevents “review of decisions of 5 the [Commissioner of Social Security] save as provided in the Act, which provision is made in 6 § 405(g).”). 7 In considering a denial of Social Security benefits under § 405(g), the Court has the 8 “power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, 9 modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without 10 remanding the cause for a rehearing.” The Court specifically considers whether the decision is
11 supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1153– 12 54 (9th Cir. 2020). Plaintiff bears the burden of proving the ALJ and/or Commissioner 13 committed harmful error in denying her claim for benefits. See Ludwig v. Astrue, 681 F.3d 1047, 14 1054 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 407–09 (2009)) (holding that the 15 party challenging an administrative decision bears the burden of proving harmful error). 16 Plaintiff raises a number of issues, all outside this scope of review. Plaintiff argues she is 17 entitled to a preliminary injunction, although the basis for the injunction is unclear. Dkt. 39 at 1– 18 3. Preliminary injunctive relief is not available under § 405(g). See El v. Berryhill, No. C17- 19 1383-MAT, 2018 WL 348471, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 10, 2018).
20 Plaintiff next argues her employer, which is not clearly identified, committed negligence 21 by overlooking warnings of her condition. Dkt. 39 at 1–2. There is no allegation the 22 Commissioner of Social Security was Plaintiff’s employer, and no allegation this had anything to 23 do with the ALJ’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s claims for benefits. Plaintiff has thus failed to 1 show harmful error in the denial of her Social Security benefits claims. 2 Plaintiff last alleges the Court’s Order Denying Default Judgment, Denying Jury Trial, 3 and Amending Scheduling Order (Dkt. 38) (the “July Order”) violated her “right for a speedy 4 trial, petition for her 1st amendment, and due processes of the law.” Dkt. 39 at 2. Constitutional 5 claims are outside the scope of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Even assuming Plaintiff properly raised 6 these issues, she has failed to show she is entitled to relief. That Plaintiff disagrees with the 7 Court’s July Order does not establish in any way that the Commissioner of Social Security 8 violated her constitutional rights. Moreover, the right to a speedy trial is a right granted with 9 respect to criminal prosecutions. U.S. Const. Amend. VI. This is not a criminal proceeding, so 10 the right does not apply. Similarly, the denials of a default judgment and a jury trial do not relate
11 to Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights or deprive her of due process. Plaintiff has had her 12 opportunity to be heard by her briefs, which the Court considered in writing this Order. Plaintiff 13 has thus failed to show harmful error in the denial of her claims for Social Security disability 14 benefits. 15 Plaintiff raises additional unrelated issues in her Objection and Remand of Case (Dkt. 16 46), and her reply brief (Dkt. 49). The Court “ordinarily will not consider matters on appeal that 17 are not specifically and distinctly argued in an appellant’s opening brief.” Paladin Assocs., Inc. 18 v. Mont. Power Co., 328 F.3d 1145, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003). Even if the Court did consider these 19 matters, none of Plaintiff’s new issues present a basis on which to find the ALJ erred in denying
20 Plaintiff’s claims for Social Security disability benefits.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 BRENDA J., 8 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-6058 RAJ 9 v. ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF 10 BENEFITS COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 11 Defendant. 12
13 Plaintiff seeks review of the denial of her applications for Supplemental Security Income 14 and Disability Insurance benefits. Plaintiff raises a number of issues unrelated to the denial of 15 benefits. Dkt. 39. As discussed below, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision 16 and DISMISSES the case with prejudice. 17 BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff is 54 years old, has at least a high school education, and has worked as an 19 administrative clerk, education courses sales representative, collections clerk, order clerk, and 20 appointment clerk. Admin. Record (“AR”) (Dkt.30) 15, 23, 88, 96, 225–43. On August 8, 2017, 21 Plaintiff applied for benefits, alleging disability as of December 1, 2015. AR 15. Plaintiff’s 22 applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. AR 86–133. After the administrative 23 law judge (“ALJ”) conducted a hearing on June 11, 2019, the ALJ issued a decision finding 1 Plaintiff not disabled. AR 15–26, 33–85. 2 THE ALJ’S DECISION 3 Utilizing the five-step disability evaluation process,1 the ALJ found:
4 Step one: Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since December 1, 2015, the alleged onset date. 5 Step two: Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: Lumbar spine degenerative 6 disc disease; essential hypertension; peripheral edema; peripheral neuropathy; congestive heart failure; chronic pain syndrome. 7 Step three: These impairments do not meet or equal the requirements of a listed 8 impairment.2
9 Residual Functional Capacity: Plaintiff can perform light work with additional exertional limitations. She cannot climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. She can 10 occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. She needs to avoid concentrated exposure to hazards. 11 Step four: Plaintiff can perform past relevant work as an administrative clerk, education 12 courses sales representative, collections clerk, order clerk, and appointment clerk.
13 Step five: There are other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform. Plaintiff is therefore not disabled. 14 AR 15–26. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, making the ALJ’s 15 decision the Commissioner’s final decision. AR 1–3. 16 DISCUSSION 17 The Social Security Act provides that an individual may seek judicial review of a denial 18 of benefits after a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 19 Section 405(g) “clearly limits judicial review to a particular type of agency action, a ‘final 20 decision of the [Social Security Administration] made after a hearing.’” Califano v. Sanders, 21 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977). Section 405(g) is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for review of 22
23 1 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. 2 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App’x 1. 1 administrative decisions concerning claims for Social Security disability benefits. See 42 U.S.C. 2 § 405(h) (“No findings of fact or decision of the Commissioner of Social Security shall be 3 reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided.”); 4 Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 757 (holding that § 405(h) prevents “review of decisions of 5 the [Commissioner of Social Security] save as provided in the Act, which provision is made in 6 § 405(g).”). 7 In considering a denial of Social Security benefits under § 405(g), the Court has the 8 “power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, 9 modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without 10 remanding the cause for a rehearing.” The Court specifically considers whether the decision is
11 supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1153– 12 54 (9th Cir. 2020). Plaintiff bears the burden of proving the ALJ and/or Commissioner 13 committed harmful error in denying her claim for benefits. See Ludwig v. Astrue, 681 F.3d 1047, 14 1054 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 407–09 (2009)) (holding that the 15 party challenging an administrative decision bears the burden of proving harmful error). 16 Plaintiff raises a number of issues, all outside this scope of review. Plaintiff argues she is 17 entitled to a preliminary injunction, although the basis for the injunction is unclear. Dkt. 39 at 1– 18 3. Preliminary injunctive relief is not available under § 405(g). See El v. Berryhill, No. C17- 19 1383-MAT, 2018 WL 348471, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 10, 2018).
20 Plaintiff next argues her employer, which is not clearly identified, committed negligence 21 by overlooking warnings of her condition. Dkt. 39 at 1–2. There is no allegation the 22 Commissioner of Social Security was Plaintiff’s employer, and no allegation this had anything to 23 do with the ALJ’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s claims for benefits. Plaintiff has thus failed to 1 show harmful error in the denial of her Social Security benefits claims. 2 Plaintiff last alleges the Court’s Order Denying Default Judgment, Denying Jury Trial, 3 and Amending Scheduling Order (Dkt. 38) (the “July Order”) violated her “right for a speedy 4 trial, petition for her 1st amendment, and due processes of the law.” Dkt. 39 at 2. Constitutional 5 claims are outside the scope of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Even assuming Plaintiff properly raised 6 these issues, she has failed to show she is entitled to relief. That Plaintiff disagrees with the 7 Court’s July Order does not establish in any way that the Commissioner of Social Security 8 violated her constitutional rights. Moreover, the right to a speedy trial is a right granted with 9 respect to criminal prosecutions. U.S. Const. Amend. VI. This is not a criminal proceeding, so 10 the right does not apply. Similarly, the denials of a default judgment and a jury trial do not relate
11 to Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights or deprive her of due process. Plaintiff has had her 12 opportunity to be heard by her briefs, which the Court considered in writing this Order. Plaintiff 13 has thus failed to show harmful error in the denial of her claims for Social Security disability 14 benefits. 15 Plaintiff raises additional unrelated issues in her Objection and Remand of Case (Dkt. 16 46), and her reply brief (Dkt. 49). The Court “ordinarily will not consider matters on appeal that 17 are not specifically and distinctly argued in an appellant’s opening brief.” Paladin Assocs., Inc. 18 v. Mont. Power Co., 328 F.3d 1145, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003). Even if the Court did consider these 19 matters, none of Plaintiff’s new issues present a basis on which to find the ALJ erred in denying
20 Plaintiff’s claims for Social Security disability benefits. Accordingly, those matters all fall 21 outside the scope of the Court’s review. 22 In sum, Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proving the ALJ harmfully erred in 23 denying Plaintiff’s claims for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance benefits. 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED and this 3 case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 4 DATED this 2nd day of February, 2022.
5 A 6 7 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23